inspector general. in our spot by the magazine serious, we will discuss the national review cover story about the small town that is home of remington guns. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] " is next. " is next.n journal host: house republicans plan to meet behind closed doors this afternoon to discuss a way forward on immigration reform. we will get more details on that coming up on "washington journal." good morning on this wednesday, july 10, 2013. former president george w. bush will push for immigration reform in a speech at the bush institute and we will cover it on c-span.org. a house ways and means panel is holding a hearing on the obama decision to delay the employer mandate of the health care law and we will have coverage of

that at 10:00 a.m. on cspan 3. the hearing is part of a broader strategy by house republicans on the new health care law with plans by conservatives to push to delay the individual mandate of the law. we will get your thoughts on that. there is a story in " the new york times" -

we want to get your phone calls on that. i need another sip of coffee so i can read more. there are lots of stories today about the health care law and what the administration is planning to do and in the hearing today by the house ways and means health committee, they will take a look at the president's decision to delay for one year, the employer mandate. we will cover that on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m. this morning and

tomorrow, the chairman of the house subcommittee, kevin brady will join us to talk about the hearing and the republican strategy on the individual mandate. what are your thoughts on this on caller: independent caller is first the history relates to the health care mess. has the federal government ever gotten smaller? it has gotten bigger and more intrusive and more dictatorial and it has gotten to the point where it is this huge blow by an sitting on her chest crushing everybody. the progressives whether they are liberal or democratic and

they aren progressives to be congratulated. they have transformed america from a constitutional republic to a theocracy and the scandals that relate to this and the incompetents, is indicative of the 10th amendment which is comportment by a socialist state is warranted in pursuit of such a state. support you oppose or the health care law? caller: i totally opposed it because it expands government where it is another nail in the constitution. the president does this all the time. host: do you agree with the republican efforts? aller: kind of but they talk

big game but they don't know how to get in their face because the party is stupid. i agree with their principal idea but i know them so well the they will follow christian of line of socialists, line of socialists. a good this might be idea by republicans. want health insurance. people need to know it's available and you don't have to make people get health insurance. everybody needs to go to the hospital at some point in time. get sickeed to sometime and trust me, the

hospital's overcharge you. people need health insurance. all the democrats need to do is to tell everybody to get out and start buying your health care. it will be cheaper and you need it. let them do it. democrats need to come back with a counter offer. anybody with any common sense knows you will need health insurance sometime in your life, everybody. of host: here are some comments from our facebook page -- independent from pittsburgh -- it is a political stunt. businesses all over this

country have been fighting this bill and talking about how they will have to lay people off and make some cuts in their hours. this is true. it is going on state-by-state. they are pushing this mandate small businesses another year and that is more evidence that this bill may not get enacted as the president and the at allies wanted it to be. he needs to come to the middle. over on this bill and get things we can agree on and it is important for the president to take into consideration some of the republican ideas. they're not evil people. they are very good input 20 business owners to be part of this. and jumps speaks right out at me. host: you might be interested in

this story from the front page of "the wall street journal."

we are learning from " the new york times" that the house gop are pushing a delay of the individual mandates in addition to the administration's decision to delay for one year, the employer mandate. let's go to louisville, ky. caller: good morning. agree with the push for the individual health care mandate. i believe we do not need this kind of bill. as one step closer to socialism. in passingieve anything that would add $1 trillion in taxes. i looked at it as a proposal and the idea and it sickens me.

i have family in small to seeses i don't want them get crushed down by one man that thinks this is a good idea. i find it sickening. host: any of those family-run businesses, do they have more or less than 50 employees? more thane of them as 50 employees agreeable. host: what was that employers saying before the mandate was delayed? i guess we lost him. we'll go to mike next in waterbury, connecticut. voting i have been libertarian since the 1990's. the health care bills and other disaster. health care used to be affordable in this country until

the government got involved. education used to be affordable in this country until the government stop their nose in. every time they do, it does not work for its central planning work, we would have lost the cold war. we have to get the government out of everything. they are a bunch of worthless bureaucrats. we need to impeach barack obama. host: mike, houston, texas, democratic caller. i'm calling to speak out against big government. whynt to make sure everybody thinks they hate the institution so much. so many people out there are not alone. describe -- it

does not represent -- i'm so upset at all these people. it is all about socialism and communism. people are renting about how government gets their nose and everything. government has not had the opportunity to develop a transparent system for any thing that was supported by the population. decadesrnment in a few has done what all of the small government fanatics who have no idea what they are talking about and have not been able to do in generations. people need to stop taking on obama even though he is completely ineffectual. they have to realize they are being oppressed by the wealthy

class that is only accelerating the growth of their power and wealth. ever since the new deal, they have been fighting back. host: let me ask about politics. the peace in " the new york times" says that john boehner is thinking the democrats will crack as they go forward with this strategy, multiple votes on the affordable health-care laws including delaying the individual mandate. what do you think about that? are you concerned at all the democrats might start peeling off from this lot? caller: stepping down from a single payer system was the worst mistake. only puttingare money in the pockets of the corporations.

i later learned that the limitation on the amount of administrative overhead that insurance companies are allowed to make, we would eventually end up going down the road to a single payer system. with regard to de laying it -- small business owners are taking risks. these companies make a big stink about not getting bonuses. this is utterly ridiculous host: i will leave it there. this is from the front page of " the new york times."

van from "the washington post" -

and then "the financial times "this morning -- polandrom afghanistan, the plug on hamid karzai, this is "the baltimore sun editorial" -

we will keep taking your phone calls on republicans pushing to delay the individual mandate of the health care law but joining us on the phone is that corresponded with "the national journal." 3:00 p.m. behind closed doors, the republicans will gather so what do you know about this meeting? guest: we now + that thi is their last attempt this month to try to come to an agreement about what they will do and immigration. we know that they are solidly thatng behind a plan involves border security first. that could mean many different things technically but they are

emphasizing if they want to take a different approach than the senate did last year when they passed a comprehensive immigration bill -- if it would pass, it would legalize people almost immediately who are in the country illegally. we also know there is a lot of debate inside the caucus about what to do. from idahopublican who has led the immigration efforts, he told people that some of them would like to see something bigger than just a border security bill out of the house. others don't want to see anything coming out of the house. they are worried about the next step if they were to pass

something. they are particularly worried that a conference committee with the senate would cause them to pass something that looks like a comprehensive bill that passed last month. host: the front page of "the new york times" this morningsomethi. they are particularly worried that -- guest: i think that's about right. one of the issues we have to remember in dealing with the houses they have had less practice in terms of coping with this concept of citizenship and legalization then the senate. there are a lot of new members of the senate but there are more new members of the house particularly with republicans. with bige has dealt comprehensive immigration before. and passed a bill in 2006 they debated a bill for a long time, two months at least on the floor in 2007 before it died, both of which had a legalization and citizenship component. onis hard to get republicans

the house side to explain to you how it is possible to allow not some formut of citizenship. if they logically carried out that question, they would be closer to the senate bill than they think they are at this moment. question ladenlt with the emotional concept particularly for some republicans who are in states that have high unemployment rates and their constituents are worried about their jobs getting taken away. it is a bizarre combination of political concerns about what it will sound like to the constituents back home and then actually dealing with the policy question. i am not sure how far they will get in the conversation in the conference today. my guess is that a lot of that will be speaker john boehner assuring his caucus that he will not buck their will like he did

at the beginning of the weir to keep democrats in the off the cliff crisis and he will stick with them. it might take more time than people who want to see immigration reform done this year but i think that it sends a big message if nothing else host: what about the influence of other republicans? george w. bush is giving a speech today at the bush instituted the former president is going to be pushing for immigration reform. you have seen his brother talk about it. you have the republicans on the senate side have said they want to sit down with house republicans and talk about it. does this have any impact? guest: when it comes to the former president bush, his position on immigration is pretty clear. it is actually up on the wall in his presidential library. he had a five-point plan that looked like a plan that

president obama put out and the senate passed including a guest worker program, passed to citizenship, and lots of border security. i don't know that as a huge surprise to any of the members of the house republicans but certainly, that affects areas like texas and perhaps arizona who might board -- where it will have some impact. house republican members have told me and others repeatedly is that they really don't want to be pressured by anybody. they are feeling pressure in their own districts. they are trying to figure out the issue. not a lot of them are terribly familiar with this. the things they've won are not the things that have been contemplated heavily by the senate. a lot of them want to help local detain andcers to enforce immigration law. this is something democrats and the president are fiercely

opposed to. the house republicans think that is fair because they trust their own people in their districts more than they trust the government, particularly under the obama administration. it is a difficult path for and eight republican with a national profile to try and tell them what to do. i feel every time i talk to a house republican, they are mostly listened to their constituents back, and their fellow members. host: we will be covering the george w. bush speech on immigration here on c-span. go to our website, c-span.org, for more details. to orashington post"added lapage says -- -- editorial page says --

do the politics of this play into this discussion at all? either from leadership or the rank and file? guest: absolutely, is more a political question right now than it is policy. the members of the house don't want to be told what to do by the senate regardless of what the senate is doing and what the topic is. before you get to the problematic issue of a little brother will not follow the older brothers point of view. the politics of this are really critical. there are members inside the house republican caucus who would like to see more immigration in the country and they believe it is good for the economy. this is something "the wall street journal" editorial page

has been pushing. there are definitely people inside the caucus who think it would be a good idea to reform the immigration system so it is easier on people in the future and people who are here now. it is just that there are a number of members reluctant because their own constituents are concerned about the idea of giving a break to somebody who has broken block and there is a racial tension to it. keep in mind, a lot of members of the house are in states and conservative districts that do not want to see a bunch of potential hispanics who are poor and have been working under the table all of a sudden the on their way to citizenship. host: appreciate your time this morning, thank you. we will return to our discussion this morning about the gop strategy to push for delaying the individual mandate after the administration last week decided to delay for one year the

employer mandate. "the washington post"has this headline --

this is from "the washington post" this morning. this is eight wheat -- --a tweet - buffalo, new york, independent college. caller: i have a couple of things to say. care was af health republican idea. some people wanted 81-payer system. is putting this

together because of businesses and it only affects 1% of businesses. is that true? host: think that figure came from the white house. caller: i think so, too. they have been trying to get health care in this country for 100 years. there are people cannot afford it and cannot get it. i don't think they understand. i don't think people really understand there are a libertarian and they talk about government interference -- we they have been trying to get health care in this country for 100 years. there arehave 300 million peopls country so you will have government. just don't have it. -- next caller caller: that lady is mixed up on blocks. the republicans wrote below behind closed doors. there was not one republican the law then got past.

republicans challenged it. it went to the supreme court, and the supreme court ruled it was a constitutional law, and now the president is trying to change the constitution because he all of a sudden does not like the law. house and gop pushes to delay on individual mandate. it should say president obama should try to change the law. cannot do it. president obama was a constitutional lawyer. he is plunking. -- flunking. host: the calller referred to it as a constitutional idea. this is what she was referring to. they wrote the history of individual mandate.

what do you think? caller: there is a mandate because it is the law now. you cannot change the law. there are lots of other things if iwill start to come out have read the bill, they would seek it in there and would not have voted for it may be. i do not know. everyone supposedly will have health care. it is a disaster. right, randy. gop wants government to fail.

what will they go after next? medicare, social security. keep taking your thoughts on this, but let me give you other headlines. president obama is nominee to head of the fbi testified yesterday. we cover that testimony. if you are interested, go to our website. "the new york times" says this --

that is from the papers this morning. this is about the fbi nominee. times"om "the washington -- if you miss that, go to our web site, c-span.org. the front page of "usa today" -- then on student loans this "orning, "the washington post

-- the republicans have their own proposal that would tie it to the treasury bond rate. also, --

if you are interested, we covered that yesterday. "the wall street journal" -- again, go to our web site, c- span.org, to listen to and watch what the retired james robertson had suggested in changes to the court. back to work question for all of you. maryland and florida. independent calller. caller: thank you for c-span. hypocriticalost thing they have done in quite awhile. they do not even get embarrassed that one of the biggest things they talk about

is being responsible for yourself. if you are responsible for yourself, you will buy your own insurance. now they want to take that away? that is ridiculous. host: evelyn and oklahoma. what do you think? everyone think that needs insurance. people get sick. no way of knowing when you are going to get sick. people are in accidents and they need insurance to cover that. ae republican out was on -- rare book and that was on and you said nothing about it. i do not understand c-span it anymore. you let them say that. i said let's move on. i should have apologized to the viewers because that was not appropriate.

have a time delay because we want an open forum here. we wanted to be much like a town hall meeting, but when people say thing that crossed the line or are inappropriate, we try to move on her. you were right, that was not appropriate, and i should have apologized. i do so now. matthew in phoenix, arizona. republican calller. caller: thank you for having me on. i just have one question. the woman from arizona that you had on earlier. she was talking about house security is very important to my state. obama has openly mocked this, but nothing has been done. all promises have been basically empty promises, that is it. what will keep him from making

more promises in this bill? immigration as well. he was led to pay for these immigrants when they get amnesty? i am sure a lot of them will go on obama care, welfare. been provisions, i think in the senate bill, as you make your way to citizenship, and even after you get citizenship, you would not qualify for the benefits under the affordable health care act. we have a few minutes left here. we will keep taking your call on the house gop pushing delay of the individual mandate. first, from the "huffington post" -- telling foxin

news she is considering a run against the incumbent democrats in alaska. also, outside of washington today, ben bernanke will give a speech, and we will be covering here on c-span. --litico's" like i said, we will cover that here on c-span. if you are -- if you go to our , the event-span.org is commemorating 100 years of the fed. that is what the speeches about. other speculating he could make news about fed policy or what his next plans are as his tenure comes to a close.

the front page of "the washingt on times" -- host: franken oklahoma. independent calller. what are your thoughts on gop pushing a delay of the individual mandate? caller: i think it is all part of the bigger scheme actually. this administration is trying to further pushes cola of going goal of going's obannot do it with a non-

compliant people so they have to tear down the middle class and give people a much more manageable situation, and more dependent on government, whether it's health care, food rations for small jobs, and it is just and oppression of the american people trying to bring us into compliance to global listed control. is health care, the economy, jobs, foreign policy, it is all to keep our attention rapt in this minutia to keep our minds off of the bigger picture that is going on all around us. isple that think is -- obama negro. he is 70 percent erev and is a muslim. muslim.and is a

host: the president himself has said he is a christian. good morning. i agree with president obama's decision to delay and give more time to implement the new health-care law. i think it is a good thing to do. now, that said, you had a calller several calls back who called in and threatened the life of the president of the united states. this has nothing to do with his rights under freedom of speech. watching c-span for very long time, and i personally think c-span should take a stand against these colors, because we all table to to see -- to see c-span and other cable programs. in i have now put c-span into the same category that i put fox

these hate talk shows such as rush limbaugh who , and i am going to cancel my subscription to c- span unless c-span takes a stand. i would hope that others would also take a stand against c-span if c-span continues to not really address the issues when people call in and threatened the life of the president of the united states. host: ok. as we said, this is an open forum. there is no time delay, and we do that intentionally because it is similar to a town hall meeting. when someone says something inappropriate, crossed the line, it is a split-second decision by the person sitting in this chair to quickly move on, to apologize

to make the decision about what to do next. when the calller made that comment, we decided to move on. i apologize to the viewers they had to hear what he had to say, the inappropriate comments. bernie in howard beach, new york. republican calller. go ahead. caller: the person that suggested they hang the is out of his mind in should be discounted. the person who is blaming c-span equally should be discounted. is only thing i really watch the common-sense approach of c- span. thehe question of whether gop -- and i am republican, want to delay the individual mandate,

i am against it. the president and party was elected. in they have been elected with health care. if it works, it will be good for the country. it is going to be a disaster, it will be a disaster for the democrats. thank you very much. host: that was the last phone call on that. coming up next, we will be joined by congressman peter co-h and chris gibson sponsors of military action in syria. later we will talk to the former inspector general for the transportation department about airline safety and regulations in right of the airline crash in san francisco last week. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> , the problem was door when it did not understand that with such a theory, natural selection could never have really worked, because imagine you have a population of 1 million white cats and one black cat. and suppose being the black cat provide you with a big advantage, but in the blended theory, if you mix things like gin and tonic. the great cat meets with another black cat you get a great cat.

this thing gets diluted and alluded the black cat advantage would disappear in never appear again. livio explores the works of five scientists and the mistakes they made on the way to great achievement. that is on c-span2. our collection begins with the collection of some of the earliest film. it comes from 1891. that was camera test produced by the thomas edison company. part of a series of experiments that edison and engineers engaged in in the early 1890's. our collection it really begins in 1893 with first foam's registered for copyright. what edison did was exposed to

the negative on strips of photographic contact paper, a fixed them to a cardboard backing and sent it into the library to be registered as a photograph. you have to think about this for a moment. paper printed collection, as it came to be known, in that sense really was a historical accident. the name has been lost in the midst of time, but we're very grateful for whatever library bureaucrat decided it would be ok to register this as a photograph. more sunday as part of american history tv. -- see more. journal"ngton continues. host: peter welch is joining us,

joined by chris gibson of new york. serves on the armed services committee. rare that we get to have one from each side sit down with us at the same time. we thank you for that. you are here because you have a bipartisan proposal on military conflict in syria. what are you proposing? basically of the president wants to arm the syrian rebels, he cannot do that unless to get congressional approach -- approval. should we in beat -- should we be involved with the debate. secondly, the policy itself. . guest: if another country was to arm the rebels for the purpose of attacking our country, we would view this as an act of war.

this is a very serious escalation for us. i oppose it. i do not think it is unwise to arm the rebels. as pete mentioned it most certainly, before any of that takes place, there should be a voice for the american people. peter and i are the authors of the bill and has bipartisan support. same bill in the senate as well. we're pushing it forward. reporting --ill"

it is stilllutely necessary. am encouraged more colleagues are seeing the view that peter and i have, but republicans spoke before they see such serious action, and they act in public, not in private when you're talking about a matter so serious as going to war. i am encouraged we're seeing more of the colleagues come to this position, but we need to be on record as a body, in the house and senate, as to whether or not we will authorize such a serious action. support ofu have democratic senior leadership on this? guest: it is not clear yet. that where we

literally give up the ability to make the decision and have a debate in public i think is a big mistake for us. syrian civil war is a humanitarian catastrophe. about 100,000 people have been killed. i went to assyrian refugee camp. the suffering is immense. every part of your being wants to help. the fact you want to help those not mean you have a way to help. that we can micromanage an outcome that has historical origins in decades past i sink is unrealistic. from back is a story in may where harry reid said if the president wants to go to war in syria, he did not think he needed senate authorization to do so. >> i strongly disagree with that. are we ever going to learn from

what we did in iraq and afghanistan? the american people have to be told very directly what the expense is, what the risk is in terms of men and women. chris is a kernel of 30 years of service, so he knows what the class of this is. he commanded several thousand men and women. and the cost to the treasury. guest: i absolutely agree with peter on that matter. it is clear from the founding that the slalom -- solemn decision on the use of force was given to the people's representatives. that is our responsibility. i have a bill as well, the war powers reform act that would insure the america's -- american people's voice is brought back in. me just tinker what peter says, clearly this is a humanitarian tragedy.

there is our role for us in the space of diplomacy. i want to support what the administration is doing. they are in gauging with other actors in the area, including russia, and looking to bring books to the table. i think that is an important point of leverage. i think we have influence based on previous relationships in the region, but i believe very firmly, and many years of military experience that if we arm the rebels we will exacerbate the decision. we will also make ourselves responsible for the civil war. for all of these reasons -- a great point. about thatnt to talk a little bit more but i want to talk about whether this gets to the floor or not. this is from "lumber business week" --s g

guest: this is what he told me in the will of the house. we talked about the resolution. what he communicated is i do not think we're in a place to vote on it yet, because he was not utterly convinced of the moment that the president was going to execute the plan to arm the rebels. he had talked about it and had been action to move logistics' to support that, but the final decision has yet to be made. you also pointed out to the viewers this morning that there is more reluctance in the intelligence committee. if another country

was to arm troubles for the purpose of attacking us, we would view this as an act of war. guest: that is where congress has abdicated responsibility. the army rebels, let's not pretend it is not the decision. that means you have to have a discussion about will this work? whether it's the implication of -- what are the implications? once you cross the line, you are taking ownership of the situation. it has not ended well in iraq or afghanistan. make the point of libya. a situation where i was very concerned of 2011. i went to the will of the house and urged the administration to exercise caution. i did not think we should go to war. not our role to intervene militarily. i was concerned we would end up in powering people who hated our

country. you saw what happened with this. everyone pretty much upset about this, myself included. said, harming the rebels will not resolve the matter, it will make it worse, and we will be responsible for that. it is our responsibility to stop that. let me say one thing with regard to leadership. clearly this is an uphill battle for peter and i. the establishment inclines to support operations such as these. i do not think that is wise. we have free will. we can stand up and say no. that is why we are asking for this boat, to express the will of the american people. -- that is why we are asking for this vote. host: we're talking with peter welch and chris gibson about the bipartisan resolution on syria.

let me show the view worse what is in it --

guest: i think it's getting overdone here. if it's in the way of having a decent public debate. all of the polls show that people have a healthy skepticism about the wisdom of military action in syria, even as we have an enormous sense of humanitarian concern. why is it congress is the last to take up the discussion when the american people seem to have a clear point of view. he viewer's get teh involved. toler: i would like

compliment my congressman mr. gibson for his views on this subject. i think it is absolutely disgusting that the united states is intervening there. we have no business intervening in syria. ,hoever wins in syria civilization loses. both sides will inevitably find as far as io tehran, can see. that is the nature of its bomb. it is an evil system. overse of their behavior the past 700 years -- excuse me, 1300 years. they went out to conquer the western world. they wanted to impose the sharia system on the western world. not a system which should bother intervening with.

david, first of all, thank you for calling in. i appreciate white lakes. my experience in the middle east is that similar to many different cultures is the experience is very dated. my experience with the iraqi people is very warm, well- received. .ot always reported in that way certainly want you to get to know the family. very difficult circumstance in iraq dealing with the insurgency. i guess what i want to say in the first place is my personal experience is i have met muslims who were very warm and to us, to americans, in as much as we were fighting a very extreme elements. when you weret me

talking about the 700 years of bad behavior. this is a very developed civilization. it has made many contributions. guest: in fact, one thing we were involved in helping is celebrating -- separate attacks. . this dates all the way back to those that would highjack the religion and move it in the direction that is not really true to the initial intent. that is an area where i think there is more work that can be done internationally. the issue, the complexity. the complexity with the concept really concerns me. and certainly in libya. some of my worst fears came true in libya. how difficult it is to establish a logistical base. to be able to come through who the potential supporters,

people we are going to support. how difficult it is to go through the training, learning how to maintain weapons. this is the point that the efficacy is dubious at best. 24 year army career. separate deployments to kosovo where you were along the southwestern u.s. border for he beatdrug operations, most recently, and then came to congress in 2010. you bring that background, i assume. biggestmong the challenges in accomplishing the mission was situational awareness. and then the requirement for understanding and how difficult that is with the requirement to

listen and to interact. an understanding, allowing for action in pursuit of objection in pursuit of the ultimate strategy. the situation in syria is very murky. i question our ability to really exercise precise action, such has been suggested. furthermore, i do not think even if you did that that this will resolve the matter. arming the rebels will make it worse, not better. in sequester and talking about using taxpayer dollars to do something that will fail. me get another calller. we will be able to talk to both of you. good morning. and i am on the same page as both of these representatives. i personally feel we should not be in their business. we cannot fight their fight,

and they have to resolve -- the people of syria have to resolve their own problems. it is like getting involved in someone else's -- possible but can resolve this for themselves? >> this is where the humanitarian desire to help sometimes pushes us into things that will make things worse, not better. there is a split in the arab world. in syria, you have questions, the druze. some of it out of fear. of have enormous amount opposition, but the groups are united.

go, they will be score settling among some. of the senatein armed services committee wrote a letter to the president june 18 theng if assad wins, consequences for u.s. national security would be disastrous and dramatically increase the flow of refugees into turkey -- turkey and lebanon. guest: of taking military

action when we americanize the civil war. inthere is a civil war syria. how is military action harming them and what is the next steps? armand the rebels will not change the military equation. there is a major question even there. this is politically driven. host: they agree with you that farming them is not sufficient and go even further to and no fly zone. guest: there is sophisticated anti air-weapon systems provided by russia, and to some extent, china. what is the next up? boots on the ground. there is the ability to look over the horizon. guest: that is exactly right

that any kind of farming of the rebels will not resolve the matter, but make it worse. if we talk about further escalation, we have to believe the other actors involved here will take similar tactic, which means we're heading for a longer-term stalemate, and we will be drawn into this. i did not think this will be resolved successfully with military intervention, and we will become responsible for this. this is all at a time of sequestered and not in our interest. there is a role for us to play. that is one point i see encouraging. we are trying to get the war on factions to geneva to have talks there. on the ground, and those requests have not been rightly -- widely embraced. let me say one last thing with

.egard to angel from woodbridge that is part of why we came on the show today, to bring wider understanding about this issue, and if americans feel as we do, then we encourage them to reach out to representatives and express their viewpoints. i am of the belief that the american people do not want to americanize this civil war. what is important is the american people weigh in on this, that we get a boat in do not authorize the use of force. host: a tweet -- let me go to wrestle and get his voice in appeared in an independent. then i will have you respond. go ahead, russell. the syrian side, syria has agreed to attend a meeting

for peace with the rebels, but the rebels have not. secondly, the question as to the democrats, it does not the american have a responsibility for the carnage that is going on in syria because "the washington post" published on the front page long before a shot was fired, we were spending $23 million to destabilize the through an outfit in england. my second question directed at the republicans. you mentioned what is going on in libya. and i am a veteran of vietnam and korea. four or five soldiers were killed and around the same time of the air base in afghanistan

occurred, yet we did not hear anything about that thise same manner irritates me. host: congressman welch will go first. guest: i do not believe americans in -- americans are responsible for what is going on in syria. america can help with diplomatic efforts, humanitarian efforts, but ultimately this is a syrian that civil war. you have a minority in power of the alawites. he has been a brutal dictator, as his father was before him. it works for some people in syria because they get the economic advantage of being on top, but it is very oppressive to many american citizens. i think most of us in america are hoping for of the rebels, but we do not have any

confidence we can micromanage the outcome. host: stella's says -- that is a good point. where is the limit of our power? the fundamental question should always be, what can we do and what must we do that is in the national security interest of our country? if we can help, you want to help, but the desire to stop in somalia or condo, take your pick. where do we stop? a couple of points that the last calller raised. first, the talks. the united states involved russia tried to bring these warring factions together. mixed signals from the syrian government. how af the issue is fractured they are. you may have seen that groups outside of syria took a vote to

bring forward a leader, and opposition leader. the issue there is there are rebel groups inside syria that do not even recognize his legitimacy as a leader of the coalition, in as much as he is bringing leadership to the situation. there are also elements that are linked to al qaeda. these are some of the forces that fought against my paratroopers in iraq. not findhat you would it surprising is some of these forces are the most organized because they have the most experience. that is the concern about this because like in some ways, a weakened and of empowering forces, with intent to harm us. these are among the reasons, and there are a multitude of them of why we need to urge caution to not get involved militarily. let me say something about the

situation with regard to a guinness stand. i have led paratroopers in combat. i have lost a good young americans in combat and have others that were maimed and others are suffering psychologically. i certainly understand and empathize with the comment. i am urging us to bring conclusion to actions in afghanistan. i argue we should think and act differently and reorganize with an eye towards protecting america and our interest. we have, since the end of the cold war, and worked into the policeman. i do not think it has made us safer and has come at a high cost in terms of lives of this generation and from the treasury. so i want to acknowledge. the issue is taken before hand, during the attack, and what we

learned from that. these are the important things that we should not repeat that. the best way to repeat it is we should not get involved. guest: i disagree with that. a certainly understand the concern. point of leverage with regard to diplomacy. the world's largest economy by a factor of two. other countries want to be like as and it is based on our documents, constitution, way of life. but we have to do is recognize our strength and organize ourselves from our strength. the greatest strength is our ideas. as we bring them forward, diplomacy, commerce, and trade .acked up here yen host host: does diplomacy depend on

russia? guest: it does. we cannot do this without russia. you are going back to what the red line was created by president obama. the red line that should be what is in the national security interest of our country. that should be the red line and the bottom line. obviously syria, iran and iraq are assad-backers. and now they are supporting our adversary and allowing iran to use air space to supply -- to fly supplies in. int: our diplomatic partner this, russia, says it was the rebels. i am wondering about how you move forward? guest: we need russia in order for there to be effective pressure on assad.

we are in an adversarial relationship with them. host: wrong word, but i am wondering how he will move forward? this, the me say reality is we do not have a quick and easy answer. what tends to happen is in the desire to take what will be considered definitive action, military action is seen as definitive. it is often times a mistake. you have the pressure to act in desire to act, but you act and wisely. this is where senator mccain and menendez, everything they expressed is a valid concern. the conclusion that military action will address it mother -- rather than make it worse is not. coalesce this to is around interest. , russia,ited states

israel, all of the important players in this, we have an interest in not having this spiral into a regional war. this is why we need to really move forward on the diplomatic track. this is some place that is not in russia's interest to have this by roll out of control and have it become a major region of war. we need to recognize that. i know there has been accusations of chemical weapons on both sides, but that should not distract us from the fact that we're trying to bring a peaceful resolution to this matter. host: joe next in virginia. democratic calller. caller: the first thing i want to say is i am getting my daly notes -- daily dose of news from c-span, and how refreshing it was to see two members, one from the democratic and one from the republican party together on

the set together. it has been years since i have seen that. i applaud both of their courage and tenacity to listen to the american people and prevent us from getting into another place we did not belong. hope they are able to convince more of their colleagues to continue, and give them the strength to keep words to keep take you,or the of gentlemen. appreciate your sentiments. i encourage you to call your representative and express your view. this is your time. reach out to your representative and let them know. we are looking to build support on this. with regard to peter and i, not long after i was elected to congress, our regions were hit with a devastating --

devastating storm. we locked arm and arm on this. we worked with the leadership. broughtssfully appropriations that helped our areas recover from the storm. we also found out we other -- we had other things in common. we were both point guards growing up. we're friends. we work together on veterans, helping veterans get reintegrated. working together on farming in syria now. calledorking on a group the labels, trying to bring together functionality in the congress. host: is that how you can together on syria because of the storm? guest: i have been advocating in vermont. vermont national guard was very active and i had big losses in iraq and afghanistan. we testified in the armed services committee.

he embraced it. with his military background he really give a boost to our efforts. tranquillity tweets in -- guest: they probably had. the consequences, who knows? was very aggressive in wanting to be able to arm the rebels. the state department had much more caution about the ability to micromanage. i suspect the cia has been doing some of that. host: did the cia talk to you personally? are skillfula military people, many of them in this type of operation. they have confidence they can get the job done. having the confidence does not necessarily mean it will get done. guest: i have no knowledge of

that. the constitution is very clear, it is the people's representatives that make this is in just such as these. be a votere must first, and we say no to war. we think it will exacerbate the situation. we're trying to convince the colleagues. the reportsged by you outlined by the very outset of the show. they are starting to see this in the same view that peter and i but are taking action that we do not. the cia has confidence that it is harming the folks we talked about and that makes sense. i think all of us know that the cia does things in secret so we

do not know what they were doing. ost: it was "the hill" newspaper that reported this last night. here is the headline -- jeremy in washington, pennsylvania. republican calller. caller: i was wondering about educational support instead of military funding so they can figure out how to express themselves better instead of four. maybe diplomacy and education. i was wondering if anything was being done in that regard? iest: for the past month, as alluded to earlier, our government, in addition to russia, has been engaging on the diplomatic front to try to get

the war in fractions in geneva to engage in comprehensive discussions about how to bring a peaceful resolution. the state department has our role in trying to support peaceful activities, and to date, they have not been successful quite frankly. the other thing is the what happening in syria is spiraling into secretary and violence. an eye for an eye. at a certain point it ultimately has to be up to the syrians to step back and whether this has a future for any of them in that country. gibson, lauraman wants to know what did manage to get it from supporting assad? guest: they are involved there.

allowss a port that russia to move economic interest. this is a part of the world they want to be a player in. they understand the resources that are in this region. we understand that. we have vital interests in the region as well, hence the reason for us to move forward with energy independence, which i think would positively impact the economy and foreign policy. these are some of the factors. host: monique. look into the conversation ca. caller: good morning, everyone. i have a quick comment. we should not be in the middle east at all. whatever other countries choose to do, that is their democracy. no other countries have invaded through slavery or separate --

segregation. i do not think members of congress should have all the secret intelligence information that the senate has. not for everybody. for some reason i do not think congressman or women can hold secret intelligence information at all. they use it against each other. you wonder how china and russia do what they do. host: what about the idea of we should not be involved in were in the middle east? guest: it is how we are involved. i think we do have to be involved, and america's still has a very significant role to play in helping countries have stable situations. i think we should definitely be involved. military involvement is what chris and i are talking about. that has tended to make things worse, not better. iraq and that it is and has not worked out well for us. foras not worked out well us.

anst: towards that end, element is public discourse. beo agree that this has to something the american people debate. we are their representatives and should ultimately be on record as saying whether or not we authorize or do not authorize. host: can the cia make the decision to arm -- guest: no, they cannot. the way this works is the president can do under title 50, can direct a finding, as cia finding of which there is oversight with a respected intelligence committees. this is not a decision made by the c.i.a. but the president of the united states with congressional oversight. host: i want you book on the record with egypt as well. new egyptian government's transitional plan meets with swift criticism. david kirkpatrick reports --

guest: egypt is a mess. that is what we have seen. a democratically-elected government that was incompetent and wisely the size -- despised by its own people. real it -- military replacement of the government. you have a lot of support because the government failed. this just escalates the conflict within the society. obviously what we hope is there will be a return to the elections as quickly as possible. host: do we stop the funding to egypt? guest: under current law we would. i think congress should step

back in and make the decision of what we do based on what is in the national security interest. guest: it is a coup. i do not know how anyone could describe it as otherwise. the government that although was democratically elected has become popular and had taken positions that were different from us. we had concerns about that. this is a coup. our law is clear. off until such time -- i have specific language in front of us coming from the foreign section 508 of the foreign assistance act says none of the funds appropriate or made available shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to the government of any country who is to be elected head of government is opposed by a military coup or decree. it does lay out the stipulations on how the funding can be resumed, and that power is with

the discretion of the president in terms of whether or not certain things happen. $8 billion has come from other countries. i would say this is encouraging. we are in such fiscal challenging situation with the matter of the sequester. that local actors would be more involved financially, that is a good thing for us. commander, i did exercises with the egyptian army. relishedian military these exercises. this is 10, 12, 13 different countries, really small elements. the egyptian military and the country were very proud to tell

other countries to come to our exercises.s -- billion overg $1.7 three different accounts. i think this is a moment when we can restructure that aid. i think with the use part to resolve the sequester. towards shows the move these democratic elections, if they honor the obligations with , then wey with israel can talk about how we restructure that kind of assistance. i do not think we need to keep it at the same level. other countries are willing to

come forward with financial assistance. guest: i agree with that. saudi arabia and qatar have come up with $8 billion. our aid tends to the military. the military has provided some stability in egypt. i think as the situation develops, we should be paired to -- we should be repaired to provide some aid and moving back towards democratic rule. host: we have about 15 minutes left with peter welch and chris gibson talking about the u.s. role in the syrian conflict. i want to throw this tweet out -dog.th of you from communist

guest: i have read this law. i have never doubted the intentions and i agree with the goals. the goal was to expand access while retaining quality care. of course i am for that. i do not believe this law is going to do this. access will be dubious. retaining quality care. the possibility of losing doctors, a dr. you have. on believe we should repeal and replace that. the administration will not enforce the employer mandate until 2015. i do not think we should enforce any mandate. i think there is a better way.

i would love to work together to pursue the goals of driving down health care costs while retaining quality care. i will tell you this. the right to be on side of history on this. this law is not good for the american people. guest: i disagree with that, by the way. host: we have a tweet. i will have both of you answer this. there was a front-page story about the president thinking about a zero option. he would leave no american forces after next year. guest: i think it is premature to comment. the main effort is to train the

afghan security forces. combat operations for our troops end this year. that brings the conclusion to our end in afghanistan. but that tookiraq almost a decade. i want to see us think and act differently as we go forward. we should not be the world's policemen. guest: in afghanistan, we went in to get osama bin laden. once we a conference that, we went into nation building. that was a major error in our policy. we have never had a reliable

partner. we are delivering suitcases full of cash to karzai. he is now refusing to enter enter any reasonable agreement. we do not have a reliable partner.- a lot of our troops are being killed by our allies. you can't expect our men and women to be training people who are turning their guns on them. the zero option is something that may well happen. alph is next. welcome to the conversation. caller: congratulations. hello? host: we are listening. caller: we have bipartisan

support finally. you are statesmen and not politicians. it seems we need to stop arming all of the countries in the region, whether it is egypt, saudi arabia, israel, turkey. we have been arming this region for years. the core of the problem is the palestine conflict. we need to get on and bring peace to the region. guest: if we could get a middle east peace agreement between the israelis and the palestinians, that would be a normal helpful. secretary kerry is trying to reignite these peace talks.

there are other problems in the region that have little to do with the conflict between the palestinians and the israelis and i think syria is an example of that. there is another dynamic that would be there independent of the israeli-palestinian situation. guest: no question, the most critical area is israel and palestine. who are you negotiating with is the issue. there is a willing partner for negotiations in israel. where do you go for the willing partner in palestine? in terms of where some of the leadership is in terms of violence. terrorist elements. it is a very problematic situation.

we should be pushing towards these kinds of talks. realistic, to be even as we are pursuing this. host: back to syria, we have a count_210. guest: this thing is not just russia. iran.ah,l itrush is brought into this, doesn't help russia -- if russia is brought into this, it doesn't help russia. guest: russia sees it to their advantage to have assad. their point is a side can win.

that is where they are betting. host: many get one more phone call. john in north carolina. hi, john. caller: i agree with most of the callers. i do not agree with getting involved in syria. i am not an isolationist. i have two questions. what do you say to people who askedur founding fathers and beg for money from the french monarchy and they bestow the continental army with arms and supplies. say do you say to those who it history the british empire was sympathetic to the confederacy? guest: i do not deny those

facts. i do not view myself as an isolationist. we should begin with our strengths and ideas. i think that we offer so much to the world and leveraging that backed up by deterrent. we are talking about engagement but not military engagement. guest: this is a practical decision. if we could help military in , i would betances supportive of that. we use this military option somewhat recklessly at times and naïvely because it doesn't work. situation, the

idea that small arms to the rebels is going to be a counterweight is naïve and it doesn't risk americanizing this civil war. host: immigration reform. there is a meeting to talk about the way forward on this. we have this from "the wall --eet journal" editorial we are a nation of laws and immigrants. ireland andme from other parts of europe. way to to find a reconcile these important principles that we have. their are many facets in the discussion.

we do not have a policy. look at the supply and demand in the labor market. i represent an area where agriculture is our number one driver. our farmers have difficulty with labor. host: do you want a pathway to citizenship? guest: i am open to a discussion. farm labor is the number one issue for my folks. we are a nation of laws and immigrants and we need to secure the borders. guest: they focused on securing the borders and a pathway to citizenship. that is not an easy pathway. you have to pay a fine and get square on any taxes that you owe.

you have to learn english. host: by democrats going to insist that is the only bill they will vote on? doesn't have to be the senate does it have to be the senate bill? guest: the pathway to citizenship is the bottom line. it is very important that it has to resolve the matter. 1986 and welaw in thought that was the law that ends all the other requirements. it needs to be a comprehensive discussion and a means to make sure we enforce whatever it is. we are talking about legal immigration.

there has to be many facets involved. host: thank you both for your time this morning. guest: a great job except for the aca. host: we appreciate the conversation. up next we will speak with mary schiavo. she will be talking about airline safety in light of the asiana crash in san francisco. and then charlie cooke will join remington.view on but first a news update from c- span radio. >> the associated press reports general issecutor ordering the arrest of the muslim brotherhood's spiritual leader and nine others for instigating violence that left more than 50 dead. warrants for at

man and his deputy and eight other leading islamists. swear an oath of obedience to hear and obey. the surviving suspect in the boston marathon bonding will be arraigned in federal court in boston today. he is charged with using a weapon of mass distraction in the blast that killed three people and wounded more than 260. the proceedings can be viewed in the main court room by thick them's families. families.im's you can watch them on our website at www.c-span.org. --sarah palin is

considering a senate run ople havepe requested me considering it." >> the problem was that darwin did not understand. natural selection can never have really worked. imagine you have a population of one million white cats and one black cat. supposed being a black cat does provide you with some big advantage. you mix things like gin and tonic. the black cat meets with a white cat and you get a gray cat. a gray cat mates with a white cat and you get a lighter shade and this gets diluted and diluted. explores theo

work of five scientists, saturday at 10 p.m. eastern on c-span2. continues. journal" host: joining us mary schiavo , the transportation inspector general and is here to talk about airline safety. let me just begin with showing our viewers what the ntsb chairman had to say at a press briefing yesterday in the middle of this ongoing investigation about the experience of the pilot. [video clip] pilot is aructor captain. heath reported to our investigators that the total flight time is 13,000 hours.

he estimated he had about 3000 hours in the 777. his total pilot in command time was about 10,000 hours. he had been in the korean air force for 10 years. he reported that this was his first trip as an instructor pilot. stated thator pilot he was the pilot in command. he was sitting in the right seat. host: what did you hear there from the ntsb chairman about the experience of the pilot? guest: the experience of the pilot matters because like anything you get better with skill. the more you fly in a particular

type of aircraft, the better skills you have. this is the person in the right seat. he was the instructor. the pilot in command is the instructor. what they said next was just shocking and that this was his first flight as an instructor. good instructors are not warned, they are made --are not born, they are made. the next thing she said was equally shocking about him reaching over and adjusting the throttle. the pilot in the left seat had not realized it. terrible, terrible move. host: does it make a difference these pilots had most

experienced with a different type of aircraft? guest: it does make experience. every aircraft has a different feel. they had a 17 mile straight in approach. that is a long time and a good time to set up your approach and get to the airport. bayng over san francisco with the water, you will have a .articular kind of sink rate it will be a little different over warm water. that is the kind of thing you get used to. -- not he had 10 legs 10 trips but 10 legs. you might rack up six legs on a trip. that is not very much experienced to have a planeload

full of people and a first-time instructor. have put thatd team together? does anyone oversee who gets put together in the cockpit? guest: the airline. that is the airline's responsibility. checked out ondy the right aircraft. airline are and the registered in korea. they follow the korean air regulation. the chief pilot will assign various duties and training pairings. responsible for landing the aircraft? guest: it is always the pilot. is the pilot in command.

that is whether you are on it information -- instrument approach or on a visual. pilot gave them a cleared for land with a visual approach. the tower borrowing an emergency, barring seeing other traffic, they do not have any further obligation to that flight. host: what role did the tower play? of what thed some tower said. guest: air traffic controllers can be helpful. their job is to separate traffic. informatione that is requested and the proper information to get lined up for landing.

the things they told them were helpful. it is up to the pilot to respond. there was the airspeed indicator and the altitude. the red and white lights that tell you if you are too high or too low, they were operational. that is something you learn your first day in flying school. read over white, you are all right. red overrate, you are dead -- dead.er red, you are host: here is the headline in "the new york times." they are talking about mechanical failure in the role of the crash. they believed they had set the

auto throttles to maintain safe airspeeds. guest: that is right. the chairman did say that yesterday the pot reported he had set the auto throttle and that the auto file should have knotshe airspeed to 137 and it fell about 30 below that to a dangerously low level. did they properly set it? that would not excuse the accident. the instructor pilot adjusted the airspeed, noticed it was low to increase that. then the pilot in the left seat said, "i notice the airspeed was low and i went to adjust the

higher.s i noticed the instructor had already done that." there is another example of terrible crew resource management. the pilot had noticed the problem with the auto throttle. there was one other thing that was mentioned. there was an air witness directive on this plane. that is for the air pressure transducer. in january,warning 2013, that all operators needed to check to see if there care data gave the correct altitude and airspeed in the 777.

i am sure they must have done that by february. where did that directive comes from? this is not a u.s. company. do they have to listen to that sort of directive? guest: the directive comes from the federal aviation administration. companies that fly planes usually listen to them. they are not bound by u.s. regulations. air witness directives are not subtle suggestions. they mean that something could be terribly wrong. it is that strong and that important. you had every incentive to do it. if there was a problem with your indicators, honeywell will replace them if there was more

than 75 feet of difference. they had every incentive to go do it. there would be no reason not to do that. the a possible issue with auto throttle holding airspeed are just about the only mechanical questions we have heard and both of which should have been over concern by noticing your way low on your altitude. ick has a question on twitter. guest: the ntsb has been sktical of pilots flying ills because everything is so automated. 777 can do everything. it could have landed itself. the instrument landing in san

francisco was out. they could not use the full auto land feature because they didn't have the instrumentation to get the auto glide slope and all the data to do that. an accident like this one, the autopilot might have saved it, would have saved it. it would have made a difference. host: whose fault is that, if the instrumentation was not available to the pilots? big,: san francisco is a popular airport. you like to have that system available. ande is a notice to airmen as a pilot you're obligated to check that at the airports in

which you're intending to land. tam out thaten a no- the system was out. i think it expires in august. and so it was noticed that it was out. the pilots would have prepared for that. that is why they have no-tams. pilots are required to know about that. host: democratic caller. time a isn't it true any domestic airline has a crash, , theyrst thing the faa asked for a joint test or alcohol. but any foreign airline such as the korean, they are not given any kind of a drug test,

alcoholic test or whatever. can you elaborate on that? guest: that is a point with which i disagree with the current thinking. aviation is governed by a series of treaties. there is a fifth flying right or the fifth freedom and that is the right to fly in and out and other passengers and still be subject to the laws of your flak gation -- of your flak nation. when someone is involved in an accident, we require them to be subject to testing and questioning and all sorts of investigation. for us to say that since you're a politic from another country

you are not subject to drug and i'll call questioning, pilots do not have diplomatic immunity. off on thehands- regulation of pilots from other airlines, i think that should not be the case when they have been involved in an accident. code-st two u.s. carriers share. if any passenger had purchased a ticket, the u.s. rule should apply because the ticket was sold under the united states. if you don't have anything to do with u.s. carriers are passengers, i can see the point. when that is not the case, you have passengers and a u.s. crash, i think we have every right to demand drug and not

call testing. a lot of aviation is political. uff when we a h demand things of other airlines. host: mary schiavo is our gas to talk about the asiana crash. robert is up next from arkansas. caller: yes, good morning. two points. that wewith the lady should have drug and not call test for all pilots, even those from foreign nations. it sounds to me like there is plenty of blame to go around, not just the pilots. situationomplicated involving air traffic controllers and airports and the

airliners and the pilots themselves. conclusion that maybe the best solution for this airplane would have been for them to have landed safely on san francisco bay like the pilot did on hudson bay. host: mary schiavo? guest: one thing we need to in perspective is the number of visual flight rules landing. it is common for passenger airliners to be given visual flight rules clearance by the tower. it wasn't that unusual to get a clearance by the tower. it happens a lot. there is some criticism and i do not know this is justified. some politics claim the tower likes to stuff more traffic in

the flight pattern. i do not believe that. there is a criticism of those commands. i do not think it was unusual for them to have to land the plane visually. usually there are good outcomes when you land on water. didain sullenberger something very unusual. they managed to do a successful water ditching. most pilots are not trained for that. they happen to be experienced pilots. the outcome on a water landing would have been worst because we would have had more loss of life. with the landing gear hitting the seawall, a difference of 75 feet would have made all the difference in the world.

the point where they were touching down was a couple of hundred feet before the runway indicators. they were just way low and away slow all the way around. host: we are taking your comments and questions on airline safety. what do you make of this from "the washington times" this morning. this is what is known so far. guest: yes. the timing is just tragic. they got the final clearance 17 miles out. they were a little high

initially. what happened for those several seconds beyond that or minutes is also a mystery which the ntsb will solve. to not notice the problem until jetn seconds out -- a engine takes a while to get up to speed. it is not instantaneous. you do not notice your airspeed you do not get 30 extra knots in a second. have they gotten more airspeed, they might have made it. at four seconds, i do not think they could pull it out. the stick shaker is a warning to the pilot that you are in imminent danger of crashing. host: did they try to pull up

and gain speed? theo, did that lessen impact of their landing? what would have been the alternative if they had not tried to abort? guest: the problem with the stick shaker is that is the one thing you cannot do. that is what happened in buffalo. you do not want to stall and fall out of the sky. they could not do that here. the stick shaker said you are already about to stall. they had nowhere to go. they had only one option which was to increase the power. it appears from the eyewitness accounts that the plane waiting to taxi and takeoff, they said

at the last second, they did here the engines increase and they did see theto come up, but it was too late. host: george is next from colorado. you are on the air. caller: i was an airline pilot for about 30 years. you never get below the bug speed. we would carry about five knots ahead of it.- this is basic pilot error. nobody was paying attention. normally you blame the pilots but that is what we need to do. guest: there is nothing like experience to put the truth face on the situation and i think the caller is right.

from your first day in flight school, a good instructor is on your back to watch her altitude and your airspeed. your altitude and your airspeed all your friends. "you fly the plane. do not let the plane fly you." i think the pilot caller is right. host: we have this from james on twitter. guest: because deborah herdsman does a good job. i had an opportunity to work in aviation safety for a long time. she is a strong leader. i do not want to pick on anybody. they all tried to advance aviation safety. she is holding the line pretty good. she is doing a strong effort.

we should let her do the job. i am sure she will get to the bottom of it. this one has a 1400 parameter black box. that is amazing. , we of the first accidents had some parameters that had a handful of data parameters. they recorded maybe a dozen things. s.en they got in the 20' this has 1400 parameters. they are going to get to the bottom of this. they got criticized for releasing information. host: mary schiavo was the inspector general from 1990 through 1996. jay in baltimore, go ahead. caller: how are you guys doing?

these guysng that should be required to fly instrument flight rules at all times when they have passengers on board. that would eliminate a lot of the possibility for stuff like this. faa needsthing the look at is the actual flight paths into these airports. they need to be adjusted. you have these guys lined up for miles like a highway. they are they need supposed be able to do --all the airports across the country, you see these guys lined up for miles out less than a mile off the ground. these flight paths should be

instrumental and i think they need to be adjusted to make them safer. boy, that call has hit on the head of so many issues in aviation. so many are political. if the planes were flying instrument rules, we would have far fewer accidents. there is a big lie being effort. when you increase obligation, there is a huge lobbying effort against it. there are some members of congress atorsho say you cannot make it completely safe. you do not want to make it more expensive. that is pretty much nonsense. whose airspace is it? is not theirs, it is ours. you do not own the airspace.

the people of the united states on the airspace. when you talk about increasing regulations to make it safer, it might cost someone their life. the caller is correct. it is very difficult to get those through. plane operated by korea. and thoseilots involved, do they have to participate in this investigation? can may at some point say, we are not going to talk anymore? guest: they can and we have that happen. 2000.air about our ntsb started to determine that it was an intentional crash

by pilot. then there was a huge the nomadic outcry. egypt do not want us to go forward -- there was a huge diplomatic outcry. egypt air to the position there was a problem with the plane. we did not get a full investigation. they did not clam up. didl this day, the pilot yell some statements into the cockpit voice recorder as the plane was going down. we never did get the full investigation that we are entitled to as citizens of the united states. host: we have about 10 minutes left with the former inspector general. democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881.

independents, 202-585-3882. et methe regis tweet -- l read this tweet for you from see of tranquility. runways,nding on the coming over the water and you have the seawall at the end. those were the problems they experience in this case. other days there is whether -- weather an additional traffic. you sometimes have to turn around and get in to the landing. none of those issues were present. the wind was very light. ordinarily he can be tricky. for a first time san francisco

arrival, it is almost heart stopping as you see the plane coming in next to you. , they didn't have the weather or a wind problem. visualas a straight-in for several miles. what was not there also was the instrument landing system, which would have helped. closes the alternative, the airport until you get the instrument landing system? that is not viable. tweet.e have another guest: i do not have an exact percentage but a lot. i cannot hazard a guess. recordings,e tower you will see at the last part of

it is very common to say we will take on visual flight rules. it is not unusual. host: clear is next in tennessee. -- claire is next. caller: i am interested in knowing, well our country will revisit the treaty with korea? go toonsumer, where can i find information that will help me make a decision about which toline i will want to fly on increase my knowledge? i do not fly a lot. what is to keep a terrorist from flying and like this at another airport with a high-profile

passenger because they have a passenger list? host: we will take those three. guest: that is a prime example why the united states needs to have a government by the people and for the people. -- that isquestion such an interesting thing. we have to negotiate. the state department is negotiating these various treaties. faa.or the to we also negotiate to get freely open skies. u.s. carriers want to go into those countries. outsource about the toughest --

hours are about the toughest. we do not want our aviation impeded. we give away a bit of our ability to regulate and oversee. it is difficult to negotiate those treaties. it took years to negotiate a treaty with japan. that is a fairly difficult things to do. where to go to get information? faa is tasks to regulate the safety of airlines. their jurisdiction applies to u.s. carriers. they do not evaluate carriers and compare them to each other.

they did it only once, just before the valujet crash in 1996. on that list of comparative data, valujet was very bad. they had an accident rate 10 times worse than other carriers. the government never did it again. there is no way anyone can find out whether your pilot has 10 legs or 10,000 trips. that is not information the public should get. the government has the data. host: the last question was about a terrorist using an aircraft to pull off some kind of an attack. guest: after september 11, and 2001, we had a difficult time convincing governments to give

us the names of the pilots and the passenger manifest. they are coming to our country but they did not want to give us that information. there was a compromise and they would give us that information while they are in a rude -- en route. that means on our end everybody has to scramble to make sure there is no terrorist on board. that is why homeland security has tried to open up offices in other parts of the world. people think it is for their convenience but is to help us gather some data so we know who is landing. that was hard for to get that data. that country will cut off our in that'abilities country. we do a lot of horse trading in

the aviation business. host: when do you think we will know the official results of this investigation? guest: not until after there is a hearing. there will be a public hearing. it one not be like in court -- will not be like in court. they will issue their preliminary cause of the accident and the contributing factors. that will be the first report. maybe eight months or six months there will be a hearing. a final report has a recommendation. host: we appreciate your time. mary schiavo, thank you for talking to our viewers. guest: thank you. host: coming up next, we will speak with charlie cooke about

his cover story for "national --rnal" about running 10 remington. navy isthat the u.s. attempting to land an unmanned aircraft aboard an aircraft carrier for the first time. the experimental aircraft will try to land on the uss george h w bush today off the coast of virginia. this is not remotely piloted. you realize on an automated computer system to complete its maneuvers. landing on an aircraft maneuver is considered a difficult maneuver. is being described as an historic event in aviation. veterans of president obama's campaigns are signing up top

helping a potential hillary clinton presidential campaign. the super pack says it hired a democratic firm to oversee grassroots organizing and recruitment. the group does not have direct ties to the former secretary of state but trying to lay the foundation of supporters to help mrs. clinton if she runs for president. she has not said whether she will seek the white house in 2016 but as the early front runner among democrats. found film says he footage showing president roosevelt being pushed in his wheelchair depicting a secret that was hidden from the public until after his death. said he found the clip while conducting unrelated research in the national archives.

could notal archives say for certain if other footage exists. but it is at least rare. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> our collection begins with the beginning of cinema. the earliest film comes from 1891. this is a camera test that was produced buddy thomas edison company and part of a series of experiments that edison and his engineers engaged in any early 1890's. our collection begins in 1893 with the first films that were registered for copyright. addison expose the negative for the record of a sneeze on strips of photographic contact paper,

affix them to a cardboard backing and sent it into the library to be registered as a photograph. you have to think about this for a moment. the paper print collection as it came to be known was really an historical accident. the name has been lost but we are grateful for whatever library bureaucrat decided that it would be ok to register this as a -- as as a photograph. sunday,an see more on every weekend on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. look at recent magazine articles on wednesdays as part of our spotlight on magazine series.

piecee cooke wrote the and joins us from new york. and exercising all american manufacturing. explain. guest: there was a disgraceful reaction from many after sandy hook. a really piqued my interest. do these people come from hades? are they normal americans? it turns out they are normal americans. is nice to go to a a town and to see a factory that is thriving. host: you are talking about remington done company -- gun company. guest: they are the oldest company in the country that makes its original contract.

i went to the plant in new york has been open for almost 200 ars. the guy who founded it made a barrel because he was unhappy with what was on the market. the history is obvious. you do not see factories like this anymore. the floor is wooded. people who work there had great grandfathers who work there as well. a number of people had been there for 50 or 45 years. some people could only be described as artists. this piece --e in what is the impact on this town? guest:

the town next to the factory thrived because of the factory. there is about 8000 people inilium and most of the people live in the town. i was shown the flower shop and pizza joint and a shoe shop and all of these businesses could do nothing if remington went under the. originally, the factory moved to be next to the erie canal in the 19th century so they could trade with their making. eventually, the erie canal has moved to accommodate the expansion of the factory. that would give you some indication of what remington means to that part of the country. host: how does this compare to other gun manufacturers? guest: gun manufacturing in america is booming. most of them don't have this storied history. ilium is unionized soak remington as part of the freedom

group and most of their factories are not in upstate new york. upstate new york is not where you would choose to put a gun factory in this climate with the absurd new law that andrew cuomo restaurant at the beginning of the year. it is a very old factory and in a state that is hostile to what it still thrives. it is a unique story. host: we are showings of video from the remington you to the page where they promote the different guns they make and the technology to let go to into them. what products did they make? what products and do they continue to make? guest: it is pretty much guns from the start. i looked at the museum which shows not just a wide an array of renting guns but also from other countries, beautifully and made pieces. they also made typewriters at one. . really, this is the story of a company that hit on a great idea and stuck with it.

within the context of american manufacturing decline and within the context of low employment, thought it was a story that needed telling because gun manufacturers are vilified by the left. read "thank you tells you moret about how this has been vilified. host: how his remington doing? guest: they are doing well. i heard they made 1 million tons last year and this year, 1.2 million and they still cannot keep up with demand. since 2007, it started to optic but in 2008 with the election of this president, it boosted after the gun control push after sandy hook. americans cannot buy enough guns and enough ammunition. it must be very frustrating for

those who wish to limit the number of guns in this country that the moment they propose doing so, the guns fly off the shelves. host: they had revenues of approximately $394 million in 2004 and distributes and over 54 foreign countries. what about their government contracts? guest: i got to fire one of the weapons that have been making for certain branches of the u.s. military. that cannot tell me which but they are the high end and highly trained ones. they had just landed a large contract for those rifles and they will be deployed around the world. there is some government contracts in there as well but largely, that is a prestige part of the business. the main business comes from normal american citizens who wish to buy firearms. host: the government contract is 78 $9.9 million.

here is a tweet - guest: i actually don't know how much they make. the company is a good relationship with the union because the people who work there have had fathers and grandfathers who worked there and they recognize the importance of the plant. i don't think there is any virtue being unionized but it is nice to see where the union exists it is not diminishing the business. host: if you work at remington, do you have to believe in lesser gun-control? is no litmus test. believe andeople what they are doing and is the symbol hannah gang. you probably and would not want to work and a butcher shop of

your a vegetarian and would not want to work in a car factory if you were all much. i doubt you'd want to spend your time around 8200-year-old gun manufacturer that makes weapons including weapons for the military if you thought guns or a problem in the united states. of course, they look for people who believe in what they are doing and who don't want this sort of restrictive, irrational, absurd laws that new york operates under. host: this is the cover story from "the national review." it is about remington and its factory in ilium, new york. here are the phone lines. is from marlborough,

mass., independent caller. caller: crake article yesterday. -- great article yesterday. a couple of quick questions -- how does the united mine workers factor into representing people that make guns? withther question -- automation today, are they actually losing hiring less workers because of the automation? and how much does the state debt and taxes? in taxes? i think it is disgraceful they get any money since andrew cuomo is passing anti-gun laws for the town may be benefiting but as far as the state getting money, i think that is disgraceful.

of the last question, i don't know the exact tax revenue. i would tend to agree. about this. remington along with many new england gun manufacturers are getting offers constantly from the southern states, south carolina is stealing the manufacturing and so is taxes and they are doing this actively. when you have a highly skilled work force that has been there a long time and a town that supports them, you don't about . want to move out. the remington of view is that we don't want to help new york out that we don't like dole all but our view is to repeal it. host: he talked about the union that's involved there, the united mine workers and what are

they involved? then he also talked about the technology that is being used to create these guns and ifthe that means they are hiring less people on the line. don't know the answer to the first question. that is a local issue and the union picks up on that. there is probably no such thing as a gun manufacturer is union. question,f the second yes, i think there was employment reduction with new machines but these things tend to increase the efficiency of a factory which allows them to hire more. i'm not sure it is replacing people with machines as much as it is casualties of change. answer, youa direct should ask remington. host:

here is a tweet - you talked about being recruited from other states but are they going to the state governments and saying they will leave? yes, i yes, i -- guest: think we see that in connecticut. you don't want to make a product of which you are proud and have it illegal in that state. you would presumably like to be self much of what you make a local area and not ship it out to free state. there is also the union issue but i think remington is in a unique position with its union. it is not so much the union that would be a difficult day. it is more the general climate, the high taxes and regulation. you wrote about technology

in your piece -- can you describe this into what goes into making a gun these days? guest: i was extremely naive on this. it.ew the history of that thereresumed be 18th century gunsmiths in tricornered hat making guns themselves. that is not the case at all. it is more involved than a car plant where you have a lot of robotics. this is effectively a production line. made pieces are individually by machine and buy each person and they go along the line and each part of the gun is added and then they take it on to the range and they have different ranges for different types of guns and the gun goes

out. it is extremely quick. host: nottingham, a democratic caller. caller: i wanted to ask a question about the gun control law. control and then there is done banning. when people talk about gun control, they speak of them as \ guns is to ban completely. it seems to be more about regulation about who gets them and out and make it more difficult for john doe to obtain a gun more so than just banning guns completely. any reasonable person that guns will never be banned. i think there is a need to have more of an emphasis on making it tougher for at least keeping track of the guns that are out there and making sure that they are not as easily purchased or center around.

about old gun-nk control more than begun banning? that: i certainly agree there are few propose to get -- ban guns completely. when the senate took up the gun bill after sandy hook and joe biden pretended to put together a report, two of the three components that were suggested by dianne feinstein. there was a ban on magazines or above a certain amount and a band about 250 different types of weapons that she did not particularly like. what eventually came to floor and was defeated was gun- control. it was about who could get control of guns. i oppose that because the loopholes that we hear about today were deliberately put into law and the new loopholes this

change would have created tomorrow will be treated as if they need closing. i am not somebody who is particularly worried about making the argument. slippery slope arguments make sense. there has been progress on gun rights in the last 20 years and i don't want to see it reversed at the federal level. host: i don't know what that means. host: what about having safety regulations, some sort of standard across the board for guns? guest: there is. this.not play games with a gun is an item designed to kill people. it is designed to fire a projectile extremely fast into somebody's body or an animal. that is what is there for. there is no point in dressing that operate the question is who

gets those guns, not whether they do harm. there are already safety features and regulations and manufacturing standards. you have to register every serial number of a gun. they are supposed to kill people. they are supposed to kill people what they are held by the army or the police or by the citizenry. don't wish to see a dupoly environment held by the state. there's no way to make a gun safe. host: what about the regulations? you talked about a serial number on every gun. you write about it in the story. tell our viewers. question aboute what happens if a gun comes out bad. , if it is beyond repair within the factory. the answer is that this is a heavily regulated area. the receiver which is the part of the gun that makes it a gun,

it does the firing, it told the round and contains the trigger housing. every single one of those made has to have a serial number. even if it comes out broken. if it comes out broken, that have to take a picture of cutting it in half and then send that to the federal government if the federal government asks for it. they have to document it. it is not as if there are people popping in at night and stealing chocolate. this is already regulated industry. norfolk, va., independent college. about: you were talking having guns designed to kill people and animals. do they talk about the number of people who have been killed by

remington arms? is there a difference between those who knew they would be killed and those who were innocently killed and whether or not they are planning on heavier types of equipment so that more people could be killed. guest: of course they don't talk about how many people remington arms has killed. they have not killed anybody. nor any other gun manufacturer. the gun is a tool. people can use to kill other people. the question is -- into whose hands do you allow those tools? in a pre republic, the answer has to be that the citizenry which hires the government gets them first. is next from new mexico, independent caller. toler:sir, i would like you

compare the number of gun deaths in your country of origin and a number of gun deaths in this country. if you are a bridge, does that mean britain is less free than the united states? u.s., britain is a lot less free than the united states prefer to start, britain has no first amendment and people are routinely arrested for offending others which is an outrage. massacre the dunblaine and the government banned guns. i am british but i would say that when the british band guns, there was almost no protests. 2000 people took to the streets and they did so halfheartedly and compare that to 400,000 people who took to the streets when hunting was banned. in america, there's a constitutional right to bear arms, a gun culture and a very

strongly defended culture of gun ownership. there are also 350 million guns free banning guns in britain or australia is nothing like banning guns in the united states. you cannot ban guns in a country with 350 million of them. it is a totally different situation. yes, britain is very different and there is less gun violence. there is let me -- there is not less violence but there is less gun violence. if you think the australian and british model are a recipe for the united states, you would probably be looking to start a -- the civil war. host: independent color -- caller: does remington just make long guns or pistols also? guest: they have just started making pistols again. that had a 10-year hiatus in which they made no pistols at all and they have just gone back to it. in may 1911 which i think is selling well. host: are you still there? why do you ask the question?

caller: i am familiar with making -- them making long guns free i have never heard of them making pistols. host: you know about their history with that? guest: the majority of the guns they have made historically has been either long guns or shotguns. they are famous for shotguns that they make. remington is owned by the freedom group and it on another bunch of gun companies and those companies have a specialty. some of the operations of the gun companies have been moved to the ilium pplat. my understanding is that the history was more on the line of long guns. host: what other companies -- -- does the freedom group own? >>bush master which was in the news after sending up. it owns marlin. i cannot tell you the other five. host: new york, democratic color --

caller: good morning to you. ilium, new york that family members that worked for remington. i used to be a hunter and used guns all my life. the thing that kills me is guns don't kill people, people kill people. the problem is not the guns. it is the mental instability of people that do this. i have known many people who have hunted and we just had an incident in the mohawk valley about a year ago where a guy picked up a gun and just went on a rampage. they tried to link it to guns. kill people, people kill people. that is all i would like to said. host: while you were talking, we

have been showing youtube video from remington. are from the town, how would you describe the impact of remington on that community? has keptemington members of my family and a lot of my friends and without remington being there, not only ilium but you have franklin, mohawk. there is a big percentage of herkimer count the itself along with surrounding counties whether it is part of oieida - a big area, part of this mohawk valley depends on remington arms. you also have the other businesses that have business with remington. i can remember going to school.

i went to school in mohawk and fieldand a lot of our trips had a lot to do with remington. remington is not only gunmaker but is also a big supporter. i realize the activists and what happened with sandy hook and that was bad. i understand about that. this is what kills me -- they don't understand and they see a negative impact about gun makers. they don't see the other side of it per don't understand the other side. remington has a school right called remington elementary school. they don't understand how much money remington themselves have put into that school. that's how it got that name. host: how much to your family members make an average from

being employed at revving 10? caller: i am 48 now and this has been years ago. years, it back 15-20 has been a while, a couple of them still work there. and that hady go to go automated because you've got to keep up with the times. if you could get a job in remington back in the 1980's- evens, you were making, then, it was maybe $15-$20 per hours a remington always took care of the people. arkansas city, kan., independent college. caller: i am down on the southern border of kansas. we have a packing house and some pressing plants and i would income a manufacturer come

to furnish good jobs. a license to carry. salt lake city, utah, democratic caller. caller: you equated guns to automobiles. i am curious why we don't ask john -- gun owners to also provide insurance so that they would be able to protect themselves and other people and provide monetary support for unlawful deaths that occur because of these guns? we asked the sending of people with cars. why don't we ask the gun owners to do that? if i don't protect my gun and get stolen and used in a crime, shouldn't i be held responsible? guest: have you read the bill of rights? host: go ahead with your point. there's a different

standard applied to automobile. i have a lot of admiration for people who want to appeal the second man but not much admiration for people to pretend that guns are no more protected and speech is no more protected, the right to jury trial is no more protected than driving. there's no right to drive but there is a right to own a gun. that is the limit to accessing that right and that should be as small as possible. host: kansas, democrat. ifler: i am thinking that remington leaves new york, i think it would be a good thing. let new york find out what is going on when they lose more revenue. you said earlier that remington said they are going to stay. i have an awful lot of sympathy for that line of argument in general.

pay thehould have to price for passing bad laws. if you look at the economic success of texas at the moment, you can actually see what happens when a state puts in a good business environment. having said that are remington is a very big operation and has been there for 200 years and have the awful lot of employees and this bill was rushed through a few months ago. it is not as if it has been on the statutes for 15 years. i think we approach that remington has taken the idea to repeal it. if you look of the popularity of governor cuomo before and after that was rushed through, you'll .ee there's a reasonable chance made the that probably right decision and waiting. manufacturer, i

would move, too. host: waldorf, maryland, democratic column. caller: good morning to both of you. most americans have no use for the fastest rate in this country. we have even less use for the communist left to run by this president. because will not say it it is not politically expedient. we only want guns to defend their homes a little bit. what we really need is their guns to defend ourselves against communist or fascist and soldiers that would come into our country if that power to cover this country. could never happen? gonzales to elian and taken out of his home by soldiers run by fascist and communist voices in this country. >> i think there is a slim chance of that happening but that is not really the point.

reasonght is there for a and when you look at the historical debate surrounding the passage of the second amendment and the federal constitution, the insurrectionist theory holds that ultimately, people may have the right to keep and bear arms because they might one day need to use against the government is very clearly true. much maligned in recent years. the right is there? yes. if you look of the constitution of the answer, the first post- colonial constitution, it includes the right to insurrection. it says as clear as day that people have a right to recall three i'm not suggesting that people should and i don't think one should take that line of reasoning too far. that is why the second amendment is around.

caller:er: ho 11 in neighboring community to the frankfurt-ilium-herkimer community. my brother passed away last year and raise an entire family working at remington. the businesses that are supported by all families that live and work at remington, the company is a wonderful company. they support so many people. this is a very hard-pressed area. recently have horrible flooding. these community members were so wonderful. that's all i have to say. host: thoughts from that sentiment? very: it is obviously important thing that people

maintain their jobs. is work that gives one dignity. nobody really wants to live live in poverty or the unemployed. as you just heard, the source of employment as remington is clearly important. as a story that means telling. it is not holding up their there is some idea that there is a dark, smoke-covered factory, in the hills of more that is during -- wpons that people. nothing could be further from the truth. a cover story from "national review," thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: the house is in session this morning and later for its legislative agenda. his day. -- mark apple day twact --